Bulletin  No.  32.  i"fi- 

r.  S.  DEPARTMENT   OF   ACRKVI/rrkK. 

OFFICE    OF    EXPERIMENT    STATIONS. 


DIETARY  STUD 


/ 


AT 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY,  LAFAYETTE,  IND.. 


IX 


1  8  Q  5 


BY 


WINTHROP  E.  STONE,  PL  D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  CHEMISTRY,  PURDUE  "UNIVERSITY. 


WITH  COMMENTS. 

BY 
W.  0.  ATWATEK,  and  OHAS.  D.  WOODS. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 

X896. 


Bulletin  No.  32.  i"'1- 

U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE    OF    EXPERIMENT    STATIONS. 


DIETARY  STUDIES 


AT 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY,  LAFAYETTE,  IND., 


IN 


1  S  Q  5 


BY 


WINTHKOP  E,  STONE,  Ph.  D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  CHEMISTRY,  PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


WITH  COMMENTS, 

BY 
W.  0.  ATWATER  and  OHAS.  D.  WOODS. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 
18  9G. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 


Office  of  Experiment  Stations, 
Washington,  />.  C,  June  15,  1896, 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  report  on  dietary 
studies  at  Purdue  University,  Lafayette,  Ind.,  in  1895,  by  Winthrop  E. 
Stone,  Ph.  D.,  professor  of  chemistry  at  the  university.  These  inves- 
tigations constitute  a  part  of  the  inquiries  made  with  the  funds 
appropriated  by  Congress  "to  enable  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to 
investigate  and  report  upon  the  nutritive  value  of  the  various  articles 
and  commodities  used  for  human  food."  They  were  conducted  under 
the  immediate  supervision  of  Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater,  special  agent  in 
charge  of  nutrition  investigations,  in  accordance  with  instructions 
given  by  the  Director  of  this  Office.  Mr.  H.  M.  Smith,  special  agent 
of  this  Department,  assisted  in  carrying  on  the  investigations. 

The  dietary  studies  previously  made  in  the  United  States  have  been 
confined  to  a  small  number  of  places.  In  carrying  out  the  provisions 
of  the  act  above  cited,  representative  localities  have  been  selected  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  in  order  that  definite  information  regard- 
ing the  food  supply  and  consumption  of  people  living  under  different 
conditions  might  be  obtained.  Lafayette,  Ind.,  is  near  the  eastern 
edge  of  the  prairie  region  of  the  middle  West,  and  it  is  believed  that 
the  food  habits  of  people  living  in  this  region  would  be  very  much  alike. 
Purdue  University  possesses  well-equipped  laboratories,  and  offered 
some  exceptional  facilities  for  carrying  on  food  investigations. 

The  dietary  study  with  the  teacher's  family  is  particularly  interesting, 
since  it  corresponds  quite  closely  with  the  current  dietary  standards, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  cost  is  very  moderate.  It  is  a  good  example 
of  what  may  be  accomplished  by  judicious  expenditure  of  money  and 
careful  selection  of  available  food  materials.  Comments  on  these 
investigations  made  by  Professors  Atwater  and  Woods,  and  appended 
to  Professor  Stone's  report  herewith,  indicate  the  value  of  the  Indiana 
dietary  studies  as  compared  with  similar  investigations  carried  on 
elsewhere. 

Professor  Stone's  report  and  the  accompanying  comments  by  the 
special  agents  of  this  Department  are  submitted;  with  the  recommen- 
dation that  they  be  published  as  Bulletin  Xo.  32  of  this  Office. 
Kespect  fully, 

A.  C.  True, 

Director. 

Hon.  J.  Sterling?  Morton, 

Secretary  of  Agriculture. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

The  dietary  studies 10 

Dietary  of  a  teacher's  family  in  Indiana 12 

Dietary  of  a  tinner's  family  in  Indiana 15 

Composition  of  the  food  materials 20 

Refuse  in  meats t 21 

Relative  character  and  cost  of  the  dietaries 21 

Comments  on  the  dietary  studies  at  Purdue  University 23 

Standards  for  dietaries 23 

Dietaries  of  mechanics'  families 24 

Dietaries  of  families  of  professional  men 25 

5 


DIETARY  STUDIES  AT  PURDUE  UNIVERSITY. 


Two  dietary  studies  were  made  at  Purdue  University,  one  with  the 
family  of  a  teacher  and  the  other  with  the  family  of  a  meehanic.  They 
form  part  of  a  series,  carried  out  in  various  localities,  to  learn  the  habits 
of  food  consumption  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  methods 
followed  were  those  described  at  length  in  a  previous  publication.1 

The  observations  were  made  with  two  principal  ends  in  view:  (1)  To 
ascertain  the  net  amount  of  food  materials  of  various  kinds  consumed 
by  the  families  during  stated  periods;  and  (2)  by  sampling  and  chem- 
ical analysis  of  these  food  materials,  to  ascertain  their  composition,  and 
thus  the  total  amount  of  nutrients  consumed  during  the  given  time. 

The  general  plan  of  the  studies  may  be  briefly  outlined  as  follows: 
At  the  beginning  of  each  dietary  study  a  careful  inventory  by  weight 
was  taken  of  all  the  food  and  food  materials  in  the  house.  During 
exactly  fourteen  days  all  food  purchased  was  weighed  and  recorded  in 
the  same  way,  and  all  table  and  kitchen  waste  carefully  collected, 
weighed,  and  desiccated  for  subsequent  analysis.  At  the  close  of  the 
period  a  second  inventory  of  all  materials  on  hand  was  taken.  In  this 
way  the  necessary  data  for  ascertaining  the  net  amounts  of  food  con- 
sumed were  secured.  Samples  of  food  materials  on  hand  or  purchased 
during  the  period  were  secured  and,  when  necessary,  desiccated  in  a 
drying  oven  at  about  90°  C.  These  were  ground  and  mixed  in  the 
usual  way  for  analysis,  and  in  these  prepared  samples  the  moisture,  ash, 
nitrogen,  and  fat  were  determined.  The  methods  employed  for  the 
analysis  of  the  specimens  of  food  are  the  same  as  those  used  by  Atwater 
and  Woods,2  and  quoted  at  length  in  Bulletin  Xo.  29  of  this  Office. 

The  results  of  the  analyses  are  given  in  the  three  tables  which  follow. 
Table  1  shows  the  composition  of  the  food  materials  as  found  in  the 
market,  including  both  edible  portion  and  refuse;  Table  2  the  composi- 
tion of  the  edible  portion  on  the  basis  of  the  water  content  at  the  time 
in  which  the  samples  were  taken,  and  Table  3  the  composition  of  the 
water-free  substance  of  the  edible  portion.  In  addition  to  the  ordinary 
data  of  composition,  Tables  1  and  2  present  also  the  estimated  fuel 
value  or  potential  energy  of  the  foods. 

1  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.;  Office  of  Experiment  Stations  Bui.  21. 

2  Connecticut  Storrs  Station  Report  1891,  p.  41  et  seq. 


Table  1.  —  Composition  of  food  materials  as  purchased  (including  hoili  edible  portion  and 

refuse). 


[Anal;.  /<  d  a1  i.  fayette,  Ind.] 


Kind  of  food  material. 

ence 

111110- 

ber. 

Refuse. 

Water. 

Protein. 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 

dratt  s". 

Ash. 

Fuel 

value 

per 

pound. 

ANIM.U.  FOOD. 

Porterhouse   steak,    native 
beef                       

58 
79 

14.5 
11.2 

/-.  /■  ct. 
53.9 
50.  6 

Per  ct, 

19.8 
16.  G 

Per  ct. 
10.8 
20.7 

Per  cent. 

J'erct.    Cat 

1.0               825 

Do 

.  9           1, 180 

12.  9         52.2 

~527T 
19.5         55.0 

18.2 

15.  7 

1.0           1.000 

80 

81 

15.3 
8.5 

14.6 

16.6 

.  8               900 

J)<» 



.  4              860 



18.  3         53.  G 

11.9 

15.6 

.  6               880 

Ribs                   

17! 
248 
233 
249 

2     :         40. 5 
66.2 

17.  3         57.  2 
5.  G         59.  8 

12.1 
21.6 
16.9 
18.8 

18.1 

V, 

14.8 

.6  1            990 

1.1  1            870 

Do 

.  9               640 

Do                

1.  0               975 

11.5         58.5 

17.8 

11.2 

1.0               805 

259 
260 

17.  3         57.  6 
9.  9         66.  8 

17.8 
19.3 

6.3 
2.9 

1.0  1            595 

1>.. 

1.  1               480 

13.0         62. 2 

18.6 

4.6 

1 .  0               540 

305 
319 

878         65.  1 
13.3         58.0 

19.0 
16.5 

G.l 
11.3 

1.0               610 

Do 

.  9               785 

Average 


Average 


VEGETABLE   FOOD. 


Corn  meal,  gr an iilar.home-grown 

Hominy 

( )at  s,  rolled 

Wheat  Hour,  graham 

Wheat  flour,  roller  processs 

Wheat  Hour 

Wheat  Hour,  pastry 

Bread,  white,  baker's 

Cake,  baker's 

Vanilla  wafers 

Beans,  canned,  with  pork 

Sweet  notatoes,  canned 


50G6  . 
5109  . 
5149  . 
5256  . 

5427  . 
5465  . 
5504  . 
6862 
7073 


88.8 

3.3 

13.2 

9.7 

11.4 

9.5 

11.2 

18.4 

10.8 

15.5 

10.8 

14.7 

11.5 

12.0 

10.8 

12.3 

40.  2 

8.7 

23.  3 

4.6 

5.8 

6.8 

76.1 

5.2 

42.0 

2.6 

4.0 

.7 

5.8 

2.8 


.7 

5.9 

15.7 

2.1 

.5 


3.9 
71.8 

.  7 
1.3 

78.0 

.4 

62.8 

1.8 

69.1 

1.8 

73.4 

.5 

75.2 

.4 

75.9 

.4 

49.  7 

.7 

60.5 

.7 

71.2 

.5 

15.2 

1.4 

53.6 

1.3  , 

1,685 
1.655 
1.  760 
1,  690 
1.665 
1,660 
1.  665 

1,  115 
1,460 

2,  115 
465 

1,065 


Table  2. — Composition  of  fresh,  edible  portion  of  food  materials. 
[Anal]  zed  al  Lafayel  te,  End.] 


E  bids  of  food  material 

Refer- 
ence 

num- 
ber. 

Water. 

Pro- 

trill. 

Fat. 

<  'arboh\ 

Ash. 

I'm  1 

value  per 
pound. 

ANIMAt.   FOOD. 

Beef: 

Porterhouse  Bteak.  na1  h  e  beef 

Do    

58 

79 

Perct. 

63. 1 

57.  0 

/'-  r  et. 
23.1 

18.7 

Perot. 
12.  6 

Per  '•'  i't. 

Perct. 
1.2 
1.0 

Calories. 
960 

23.3 

. 

60.0 

20.  9 

18.0 

1.1 

1,145 

-' 

80 
81 

62.  9 
68.3 

18.5 
10.6 

17.6 
20.6 

1.0 

.5 

1,085 
1,065 

Do 

65.6 

U.6 

19.1 

•' 

1,075 

Biba 

171 
2:i3 
248 
249 

56.8 
69.2 
66.2 
63.3 

17.(i 
20.4 
21.6 
19.9 

25.4 
9.3 

1.1 
1.1 

1.  1 

1,390 

770 

Do 

H.l  ' 

1.1.7    

870 

Do 

1,035 

■ 

66.2 

20.6 

12.1  | 

1.1 

890 

"  xt  '  °  

Rump 

Do..     .. 

259 
260 

09.  7 
74.2 

21.5 

21.4 

7.6 

3.2 

1.2 

1.2 

720 



535 



Average. 


Shoulder 
Do... 


Average. 


305 
319 


Veal: 

Leg.  round. 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 


1020 
1021 
1022 
1023 
1024 
1025 
1035 


Average 

Loin,  with  kidney. 


Pork: 

Sound 

Smoked  ham 

Lard,  kettle-rendered  . . 

Do 

Butter 

Do 

Cheese,  American  I'ullmilk. 


1050 

2050 
2068 
4035 
4036 
22 
47 
3541 


Milk  . . 
Do 


72.0 


21.4 


71.4 
66.9 


20.8 
19.0 


(525 


6.7 
13.1 


1.1 
1.0 


670 
905 


69.1 


74.6 

72.8 
75.6 
73.8 
71.8 
75. 1 
69.3 


19.9 


21.4 
21.1 

20.8 
21.6 
21.0 
22.5 
20.4 


9.9 


1.1 


2.8 
5.0 
2.4 
3.4 
6.0 
1.1 
9.2 


790 


515 
605 
490 
545 
015 

705 


73.  3 
73.3 


57.7 
29.7 


8.0 

8.0 

31.6 


88.0 
89.  5 


21.2 
14.1 


18.8 
15.2 


.1 
.1 

37.0 


4.3 
11.8 

22.  1 

54.  5 
100.0 
100.0 
89.6 
89.6 
25.  3 


3.9 

2.8 


1.1 

.0  | 

2. ;; 

2.3 

1.4 

4.7 

4.1 
3.6 

.1 

Average. 


VEGETABLE   FOOD. 

Corn  meal,  granular,  home-grown 

Hominy,  home-grown 

Oats,  rolled 

Wheat  dour,  graham 

Wheat  Hour,  roller  process  

Wheat  flour 

Wheat  Hour,  pastry 

Dread ,  white,  baker's 

Cake,  baker's 

Vanilla  waters 

Beans,  canned,  with  pork 

Sweet  potato,  canned 


5028 
5038 

5066 
5109 
5149 
525G 
5280 
5427 
5465 
5504 
6862 
7073 


305 

250 


1,685 
1,  655 
1,760 
1, 
1,665 
1,660 
1,065 
1,115 
1,400 
2,115 
465 
1,065 


10 

Table  3. — Composition  of  water-free  substance  of  edible  portion  of  food  materials. 
[Analyzed  at  Lafayette,  Ind.] 


Kind  of  food  material. 


Refer- 
ence nam-  Nitrogen 
ber. 


ANIMAL    FOOD. 

i:. .  i 

Porterhouse  Bteak,  native  beef. 
Do 


a  rerage. 


Sirloin  steak  nati\      :>ed 
Do 


Average. 


Ribs... 

Round. 
Do 
Do 


Protein. 


Fat. 


/'.  /  e<  „ ,'.    per  cent. 
10.51  1  82.6 

7.25  ;  43.5 


Carbohy- 
drates. 


Ash. 


Percent.    Percent.    Per  cent. 

34.1    3.3 

54.2    2.3 


53.0 


44.2 


8.13  ; 
5.35  I 


49.9 
33.4 


47.4 
65.0 


6.74 


41.7 


50.2 


171 
233 
248 
249 


6.49 
10.95 
10.59 

8.93 


39.4 
66.2 
63.9 
54.2 


58.8 
30.2 
32.8 
42.8 


Average. 


10.16 


61.4 


35.3 


Hump  . 
Do 


259 
260 


11.46 
13.52 


71.0 
82.9 


25.0 
12.4 


Average. 


18.7 


Shoulder 
Do  .. 


305 
319 


11.84 
9.81 


72.7 
57.4 


23.4 
39.6 


Average. 

Veal : 

Leg.  round 
Do  .... 
Do  .... 
Do  .... 
Do  .... 
Do  .... 
Do  .... 


1020 
1021 
1022 
1023 
1024 
1025 
1035 


13.72 
12.42 
13.  53 
13.16 
11.82 
14.50 
10.59 


S4.3 
77.  G 
85.3 
82.4 
74.5 


11.0 
18.4 

9.8 
13.0 
21.3 

4.4 
30.0 


2.8 


2.7 

l.G 


2.1 


1.8 
3.6 
3.3 
3.0 


3.3 


4.0 
4.7 


4.4 


3.9 
3.0 


4.7 
4.0 
i.  9 

4.6 
4.2 
5.2 
3.6 


Average 

12.74 

1053             8.80 

2050             7.55 

80.1 
52.8 

44.4 

15.4 
44.2 

53.0 
77.  § 

4.5 
3.0 

Pork: 

2.6 

2068             2.73 

.9 

4035  ! 

4036    

100.0 

100.0 

.1 

.1 

54.1 

Do 

Butter 

22 

47 

3541 

97.4 

97.4 
37.0 



2.5 

Do... 

2.5 

2.0 

6.9 

Milk 

23 
44 

27.5 
32.4 

32.5 
26.7 

34.2 
34.3 

5.8 

Do 

6.6 

30.0 

29.6 

4.6 

.8 
G.5 
3.1 

.  7 
1.0 

.  7 

1.2 

8.2 

1G.  7 

8.8 

.9 

34.2 

32.  7 

70.7 
77.  5 
82.3 
84.9 
85.1 
83.1 
84.4 
75.6 
63.6 
92.4 

6.2 

VEGETABLE  FOOD. 
Corn  meal,  home-grown,  granular 

5028 
5038 
5066 
5109 
5149 
5256 
5280 

11.2 

10.7 

20.7 

17.4 

16.5 

13.6 

13.8 

14.5 

6.4 

7.2 

21.8 

4.5 

1.5 

.5 

2.1 

2.0 

Wheat  Hour,  roller  process 

.5 

.5 

.4 

5427 
5405 
5504 
6862 

1.2 

1.0 

Beans,  baked,  canned,  with  pork 

5.8 

7073 

2.2 

THE   DIETARY   STUDIES. 


The  results  of  two  dietary  studies  are  given  in  the  following'  pages. 
The  tables  under  both  are  alike,  and  one  description  will  answer. 
The  figures  in  the  first  three  columns  of  the  first  table  (Tables  4 


11 

and  7)  of  cacli  dietary  show  the  percentage  composition  of  the  foods 
used,  based  upon  the  condition  of  the  food  as  it  was  purchased,  includ- 
ing bone  or  other  refuse.  The  fourth  column  shows  the  price  paid 
for  the  amount  of  each  food  purchased,  and  the  remaining  columns  give 
the  total  weight  of  each  kind  of  food,  together  with  the  amounts  of  the 
different  nutrients — protein,  fat,  and  carbohydrates — contained  therein. 

In  all  cases  where  the  amount  of  food  was  large  or  of  unknown  com- 
position, such  as  native  beef,  pork,  milk,  butter,  flour,  corn  meal,  etc., 
samples  were  analyzed  in  connection  with  the  dietary  study.  In  all 
such  cases  the  letter  a  is  placed  after  the  name  of  the  food  material. 
These  analyses  are  given  in  Tables  1  to  .3,  above.  Where  the  article 
was  not  analyzed,  its  percentage  composition  was  taken  from  the  table 
of  average  composition  of  American  foods  in  Bulletin  Xo.  31  of  this 
Oflice. 

The  weights  of  the  dried,  table,  and  kitchen  wastes 1  and  their  com- 
position are  given  in  the  last  line  of  the  first  table  in  each  dietary 
(Tables  4  and  7). 

The  second  table  in  each  dietary  (Tables  5  and  8)  shows  the  relative 
proportion  of  the  several  classes  of  food  materials  in  the  dietary  and 
the  nutrients  furnished  by  each  class.  It  tells  its  story  so  plainly  as 
to  require  little  comment. 

The  last  table  in  each  dietary  (Tables  G  and  9)  gives  the  nutrients  and 
fuel  values  in  food  purchased,  in  table  and  kitchen  wastes,  and  in  the 
portion  actually  eaten.  The  estimates  of  animal  and  vegetable  nutri- 
ents in  the  waste  are  computed  as  described  below.  In  estimating  the 
fuel  values  of  the  nutritive  ingredients,  the  protein  and  carbohydrates 
are  assumed  to  contain  4.1  and  the  fats  9.3  calories  of  potential  energy 
per  gram. 

It  was  not  practicable  in  the  collection  of  the  wastes  to  distinguish 
between  that  which  came  from  animal  and  that  from  vegetable  food. 
It  is,  however,  possible  to  estimate  with  more  or  less  accuracy  how 
much  of  the  nutritive  materials  came  from  the  animal  and  how  much 
from  the  vegetable  foods.  As  there  were  practically  no  carbohydrates 
in  any  of  the  animal  foods  except  milk  and  cheese,  and  but  little  in 
these,  there  is  no  great  error  in  assuming  that  all  waste  carbohy- 
drates came  from  the  vegetable  foods.  It  will  also  be  fairly  accurate 
to  assume  that  there  are  the  same  proportions  of  protein,  fat,  and  car- 
bohydrates in  the  vegetable  waste  as  in  the  whole  vegetable  food 
purchased.  In  other  words,  the  amount  of  vegetable  protein  and 
vegetable  fat  in  the  waste  will  bear  nearly  the  same  ratio  to  the  total 

^he  "words  "refuse"  and  "waste''  are  used  somewhat  indiscriminately.  In  gen- 
eral, refuse  in  animal  food  represents  inedible  material,  although  bone,  tendon,  etc., 
which  are  classed  as  refuse,  may  be  utilized  for  soup.  The  refuse  of  vegetable  foods, 
such  as  parings,  seeds,  etc.,  represent  not  only  inedible  material,  but  also  more  or 
less  of  edible  material.  The  waste  included  the  edible  portion  of  the  food,  as  pieces 
of  meat,  bread,  etc.,  which  might  be  saved,  but  is  actually  thrown  away  with  the 
refuse. 


12 

amount  of  vegetable  protein  and  fat  in  the  food  purchased  that  the 
carbohydrates  of  the  waste  does  to  the  total  carbodydrates  of  the 
vegetable  food.  Taking  the  percentages  of  the  weights  of  the  carbo- 
hydrates in  the  total  waste  as  the  measure  of  the  protein  and  fats  in  the 
vegetable  wastes,  the  actual  weights  of  protein  and  fat  in  the  latter  are 
readily  calculated.  Subtracting  these  weights  of  vegetable  protein  and 
fat  from  the  total  weight  of  these  ingredients  in  the  waste,  the  remainder 
gives  the  amounts  of  animal  protein  and  fats  in  the  whole  waste. 

Tables  10  and  11  give  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  two  dietary 
studies. 

DIETARY  ()F  A  TEACHERS  FAMILY  IX  IXDIAXA  (\o.4i).1 
The  study  began  March  8,  1895,  and  continued  fourteen  days. 
The  members  of  the  family  and  number  of  meals  taken  were  as  follows: 

Meals. 

Man  between  50  and  60  years  old 42 

Man  25  years  old 42 

2  men  22  years  old 84 

Woman  between  40  and  50  years  old  (42  meals  X  0.8  meal  of  man) 

equivalent  to 34 

"Woman  30  years  old  (42  meals  X  0.8  meal  of  man)  equivalent  to 33 

Total  number  of  meals  equivalent  to 235 

Equivalent  to  one  man  seventy-eight  days. 

Remarks. — One  of  the  men  was  a  professor  of  mathematics,  another 
an  instructor  in  chemistry,  the  other  two,  students.  The  younger 
woman  also  was  a  teacher.  They  were  all  healthy,  active  persons, 
with  good  appetites,  and  used  no  stimulants,  narcotics,  or  medicines  in 

any  form. 

Table  4. — Food  materials  and  table  and  kitchen  wastes  in  dietary  study  Xo.44. 


Percentage  composition. 

Total 

cost. 

Wei- 

bt used. 

Kind  of  food  material. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 
drates*. 

Total 
food 
ma- 
terial. 

ls' utrients. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

ANIMAL  FOOD. 

Beef: 

Per  ct. 
16.6 
21.6 
19.0 
18.8 
15.3 
16.5 
16.5 
31.8 

Per  ct. 
20.7 
11.1 

6.1 
14.8 
14.6 
11.3 
11.3 

6.8 

Per  cent. 

$0.20 
.15 
.45 
.16 
.28 
.36 
.42 
.  85 

Grams. 

905 

680 
2,040 

735 
1.275 
1,  955 
2,270 

905 

Grams. 

150 
147 
388 
139 
195 
323 
374 
2sS 

Grams. 
187 

75 
124 
109 
186 
221 
257 

62 

Grams. 

Do.  (a) 

Do.  (a) 

Do 

0.6 

Total 

2.27 

10,  765 

2,004 

1,221 

5 

Veal : 

Round  (a) 

Do.  (a) 

Do.  (a) 

Do.  (a) 

19.7 
20.2 
18.9 
20.6 
19.7 
19.9 
21.4 

2.6 
4.7 
2.2 
3.2 
8.9 
5.7 
1.1 

1,020 
1,075 

540 
1.245 
1.075 

540 
1. 105 

201 
218 
102 
257 
211 
107 
237 

27 
51 
12 
40 
96 
31 
13 

270 

Do.  («) 

Do.  (a) 

Do.  (a) 

Total 

1.84 

6.600 

1,  333 

a  Specimen  analyzed.     See  explanation,  p.  11. 


'The  numbers  of  the  dietary  studies  are  laboratory  numbers  used  in  the  investi. 
gations  of  which  this  study  forms  a  part. 


13 

Tahlk  1. — Food  materials  and  table  and  kitchen  wastes  in  dietary  study  No.  11 — Cont'd. 


Kind  of  food  material. 


Percentage  composition 


Pro- 
tein. 


AM.M  VI.  POOD 

Pork : 

Round  [a).. 
Lard  (a)  ... 


Total . 

Eggs 

Butter(a)... 
Milk  (a)  .... 
Mince-meat. 


nntinitrd. 


Fat. 


/V/-  et.     Per  ct. 

16.6         L9.8 

100.0 


Total  animal  food. 


VEGETABLE  FOOD. 


Cereals,  sugar,  etc.  ■ 

Corn  meal  (a) 

Hominy  (a) 

Flour,  broad  (a)... 
Flour,  pastry  (a).. 

Oatmeal 

Crackers,  milk 

Sugar,  granulated. 

Sugar,  "C" 

Sirup,  maple 

Honey 


13.1 

.1 

3.3 

6.5 


9.6 

9.5 

14.8 

12.3 

15.6 

9.3 


9.5 
?9.6 
3.9 
1.4 


4.0 
.7 
.6 
.6 

7.3 
13.1 


( 'arboliy- 
drates. 


Per  cent. 


4.1 
60.4 


71.8 
78.0 
73.4 
75.9 
68.0 
69.2 
100.0 
95.0 
70.0 
75.1 


Total 


Vegetables : 

Beans,  dried  (a) 

Cabbage  

Corn, canned 

Lettuce 

Parsnips 

Potatoes  (30.9  per  cent  ref- 
use)   

Radishes 


22.5 
1.8 
2.8 
1.1 
1.3 

2.1 
1.0 


Total 


Fruits,  nuts,  etc. : 

Apples  (34.4  per  cent  ref- 
use)   

Bananas  (28.6  per  cent  ref- 
use)  

Cranberries 

Oranges  (25  per  cent  ref- 
use)   

Peacbes,  dried 

Prunes,  dried 

Raisins 


L2 

.5 


2.9 
2.0 
2.5 


Total 

Total  vegetable  food. 
Total  food 


Table  aud  kitchen  waste  («)--- 
Fat 


1.4 


1.3 
.3 
.5 

.1 
.1 


.7 
4.7 


61.0 
4.9 

19.3 
2.7 

12.9 

18.0 
4.6 


Total 

cost. 


Weigh!  tuft. 


Total 
food 
ma- 
terial. 


Nutrient  ■ 


Pro- 
tein. 


(./■•mi  .   Grams. 
4.-.:. 
2,  495 


.70 
1.17 
1.06 
2.57 

.16 


.08 
.02 
.25 
.30 
.02 
.03 
.24 
.43 
.25 
.20 


1.82 


2,950 

4,  70.") 

1,785 

55,  055 

370 

82,  230 


2,395 

255 

7,540 

6,945 

240 

140 

2,295 

4,310 

895 

425 


Fat.     ' 

drates. 


(Ifilins.       (,r<l/iil>. 

90    

2,405    


76 

616 

2 

1,817 

24 

:.,  >72 


2'.:2 

24 

1,116 

854 
37 
13 


2,  585 

447 

1,599 

2,147 

5 


8,274 


25,440  ■     2,276  221 


835 

2,890 

1,210 

905 

795 

6,750 
310 


1.  44      13, 695 


187 
52 
34 
10 
10 

142 
3 

438 


51 


16.6 

.40 

22.9 

.30 

10.1 

.05 

9.7 

.20 

63.3 

.28 

58.6 

.10 

74.7 

.01 

1,  420 

355 

540 

865 

440 

45 


1.34  |     9,135 


4.60  |  48,270 


20.8 


33.  6 
100.0 


42.1 


14.37    130,500 


1,800 
10 


Total 


1,810 


27 

27 

17 

11 

2 

2 

4 

:; 

25 

9 

3 

1 

2 

85 


48 


2,799 


171       8,594 


374 


605 
10 


374 


615 


J,  257 
224 


2,486 


1,718 
199 

5,  272 

163 

97 

2,295 

4,094 

627 

319 


20,  319 


510 
141 
233 
24 
103 

1,215 

14 


2,240 


325 


52 

547 

258 

34 


24. 


27, 


719 
205 
758 


75S 


a  Specimen  analyzed.    See  explanation,  p.  11. 


14 

T.M'.n:  5. —  Weights  and  percentages  of  food  materials  and  nutritive  ingredients  used  in 

dietary  study  No.  J4. 


"Weight  in  grams. 


Kind  of  food  niattri; 


rOB   FAMILY   14  DAYS. 


Food 

ma- 
terial. 


Nutrients. 


Weight  in  pounds. 


P™'        Fat       Carbohv-    teI1:ii 
teiu.  '        dr 


Bei  f,  veal,  and  mutton. 
l'ork,  lard,  etc 



Butter 

Milk 

Mince-meat 


17,365 

4,705 

1,785 

55,  055 

370 


Total  animal  food 

Cereals.  Bugara,  Btarchea 

_   babies 

Fruits 


82,  230 


3,  337 

76 

016 

2 

1.817 

24 


1,491 

447 
1,  599 
2,147 


V 1 

ma- 


2,257 
224 


38.3 

6.5 

10.4 

3.9 

121.4 


Nutrients. 


Pro 
tein. 


Fat. 


Carbohy- 


7.:; 

.2 

1.3 


4.0 
.1 


3.3 

1.0 
3.5 

4.7 


5,872 


Iota]  regetabk  food  .. 
Total  food 

PEB   MAN   PKB   KAY. 


Beef,  veal,  and  mutton. 
Pork,  lard,  etc 



Butter 

Milk 

Mince-meat 


25,440       2,276 

13. 695  ,         438 
9, 135  85 


48.  27U       2, 


130,  500       8.  671 


2,486       181.3     12.9     18.2 


221 
51 

48 


20, 319 
2,240 
2.160 


56. 0  5. 0  .5 
30.2  1.0  .1 
20. 2         .2         .1 


320 


24,719        106.4 


594  I 


27,205       287.7      19.1      Is.  9 


222 
38 

60 

23 

706  | 

5 


23 


.49 
.08. 
.13 
.05  . 
1.56 
.01  . 


02 


.04 
.07 
.01 
.05 


05 


Total  animal  food 1,  054 


106 


32 


2.32 


.23 


Cereals,  sugars,  starches. 

Vegetables 

Fruits 


Total  vegetable  food. . . 
Total  food 

PERCENTAGES  OE  TOTAL  FOOD. 


326  29 

176  6 

117  1 


260 
29 

28 


.07 
.01  . 


,01 


619 


36 


4 


317 


1.37       .08       .01 


111 


Beef,  veal.,  and  mutton. 

Pork,  lard,  etc 

Eggs 

Butter 

Milk 

Mince-meat 


Per  ct.     Per  ct.    Per  ct 


13.3 

38.5 

17.3 

2.2 

.9 

30.1 

3.6 

7.1 

5.2 

1.4 

18.6 

42.  2 

20.9 

25.0 

.3 

.3 

.1 

25 


Per  cent. 


8.3    . 
.8    . 


Total  animal  food  . 

Cereals,  sugars,  starches 

Vegetables 

Fruits 


Total  vegetable  food. . 
Total  food 


100.0  i     100.0       100.0 


109.0 


5.0 


Cost. 


?4.11 

.70 

1.17 

1.06 

2.57 

.16 


9.77 


44.8 
4.9 
4.8 


1.82 
1.44 
1.34 


54.5  I    4. 


60.  0      14.  37 


.07 


.06 


.18 


Perct. 

28.6 
4.9 
8.1 
7.4 

17.9 
1.1 


63.0  ! 

67.7 

96.3 

9.1    .           

68.0 

19.5 
10.5  i 
7.0 

26.2 
5.1 
1.0 

2.6  I 
.6 
.5  | 

74.7    ' 

12.7 

8.2    

10. 0 

8.0    

9.3 

37.0 

32.3 

3.7 

80.  9    

32.0 

100.0 


15 

Tabus  6. — Nutrients  and  potential  energy  in  food  purchased,  rejected,  and  eaten  in  dietaru 

si ndi/  No.  -//. 


Nutr: 

Fuel 

Kind  ot    food  material. 

Carboby- 

value. 

Fo.nl  pnrcba  - 

4.  GO 

5,  B72 
2,799 

320 

Qrstms. 

2.486 

24, 719 

111.220 

Vegetable      

Total                     

14.  37 

8,071 

8,594 

n  . 

227,020 

Waste : 

283 
91 

605 
10 

6.790 

738 

3,  490 

Total     

374 

615 

738 

10,  280 

Food  actually  eaten: 

5.589 
2.  706 

7,669 
310 

2,486 
23,  981 

104,  430 

112,310 

Total 

8,297 

7.979 

26.  467 

210.740 

PER  MAX  PER  DAT. 

Food  purchased : 

Animal 

Vegetable 

.12 
.06 

75 
36 

106 
4 

32 
317 

1.425 
1,485 

Total... 

Waste : 

Animal 

Vegetable 


Total. 


Food  actually  eaten : 

Animal.' 

Vegetable 


.18 


110  | 


349 


2,910 


130 


Total 

PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL  FOOD  PURCHASED. 

Food  purchased : 

Animal 

Vegetable 


106 


32 
308 


340 


1,335 
1.445 


2.780 


Percent.    Percent.    Percent.    Percent.    Percent. 
68. 0  67. 7  i  96. 3  9. 1  49. 0 

32. 0  32. 3  3.  7  90. 9  51. 0 


Total.... 

Waste : 

Animal  — 
Vegetable 


.J        100.0  j        100.0  I 


100.0 


3.3 
1.0 


7.0 


100.  0 


100.0 


3.0 
1.5 


Total 

4.3 

7.0 

2.7 

4.5 

Food  actually  eaten : 

Animal. ". 

Vegetable 

64.4 

31.3 

89.3 

3.7 

9.1 
88.2 

46.0 
49.5 

Total 

95.7 

93.0 

97.3 

95.  5 

DIETARY  OF  A  TINNER'S  FAMILY  IX  IXDIAXA  (Xo.49). 

The  study  bejjean  April  22,  1895,  and  continued  fourteen  day-. 

The  members  of  the  family  and  number  of  meals  taken  were  as  follows : 

Meals. 

Man  about  55  years  old 42 

Man  about  20  years  old 28 

Woman  about  48  years  old  (42  meals  x  0.8  meal  of  man)  equivalent  to.  33 

Visitors 2 

Total  number  of  meals  taken  equivalent  to 105 

Equivalent  to  one  man  thirty-five  days. 


16 

i:>  marks, — The  family  consisted  of  three  adult  persons,  in  good  health 
and  with  active  occupation.  They  were  not  very  '-hearty  eaters." 
The  men  smoked  tobacco  moderately,  otherwise  none  of  the  family 
were  addicted   to  stimulants  or  narcotics. 

The  men  conducted  a  small  business  of  their  own  and  worked  rather 
less  hours  than  hired  laborers. 

TABLE  7. — Food  material*  and  table  and  kitchen  wastes  in  dietary  study  Xo.  40. 


Percentage  composition. 


Kind  <>l"  food  material. 


ANIMAL  FOOD. 

Beef: 

Porterhouse  (a)... 

Sirloin  (a) 

Rib  roasl 

Bound  (a, 

Rump  (a) 

Do 


Total  ..., 
Vial:  Loin  («). 


Pork  : 

J  Lam  (a) 
Lard  (a) 

Total  . 

Eggs 

Butter  (a)  .. 
Cheesi 

Milk  (a)  .... 
Buttermilk  . 


Protein 


!'■  r  rt. 
19.8 

12.  I' 
10. '.) 
17.8 
19.3 


12.8 


14.5 


Fat. 


Peret. 

10.8 
16.6 

18.1 
7.7 
6.3 
2.9 


Carbohy- 

drat-  a. 


Per  cent. 


10.8 


51.9 
100.0 


Total 
cost. 


1.28 
.32 


13.1 
.1 

37.0 
3.4 
3.0 


89.  G 

25.3 

2.8 

.  5 

1.4 
3.6 

4.8 

Total  animal  food. 


Weight  used. 


Total 
food 

mate- 
rial. 


Xutrients. 


IToU-i.,     F.t.      Carboby. 


Grams 

810 

990 

1,265 


505 


4,990 
1,825 


965 

600 


Grams. 

160 
84 
154 
115 
121 
110 


Cm  in*. 
87 
165 

229 

43 
16 


744 
234 


140 


196 


501 
1,600 


Grams. 


4.45 


VEGETABLE   FOOD. 

Cereals,  sugar,  etc  : 

Floor,  wheat  (o) 

Oats,  rolled  (rt) 

Bread,  wheat,  baker's  (a). 

Cake,  baker's  (a) ■ 

Wafers,  vanilla  (a) 

Sugar,  granulated 

Sugar,  "Coffee  AM  (a).... 
Sirup 


12.0 

18.4 

8.7 

4.0 

6.8 


5.8 

.7 

5.9 

15.7 


75.2 
62.8 
49.7 
60.5 
71.  2 
100.0 
86.6 
72.0 


.08 
.03 
.67 
.56 
.40 
.17 
.24 
.03 


Total 


2.18 


Ides : 

Asparagus 

Beans,  baked,  canned  (a)... 

Lettuce 

Onions 

Potatoes 

Radishes 

Rhubarb 

Sweet  potatoes,  canned  (a). 


5.2 
1.1 
1.5 

1.8 
1.0 

.4 


.2 
2.1 
.3 
.4 
.1 
.1 
.4 
.5 


3.3 
15.2 
2.7 
8.9 
15.3 
4.6 
2.2 
53.6 


Total 


.20 
.15 
.20 
.10 
.22 
.05 
.10 
.15 


2,835 

240 

7,855 

2,  505 

935 

2,525 

1.  530 

600 


140 
407 
2 
168 
353 
73 


2,181 


2,101 
339 

1.  348 

115 

291 

12 


4.994 


340 
44 


118 
64 


14 

55 

151 

147 


19.  085 


795 

14 

7'J5 

41 

455 

D 

340 

.> 

7,770 

130 

455 

.> 

850 

3 

1.175 

31 

1.  17      12,  035 


243 


38 


Fruits,  nuts,  etc.: 

Bananas 

Blackberries,  canned. 

Grapes,  canned 

Oranges 

Strawberries 


.5 

2.1 
.7 
.4 


13.7 
56.4 
13.0 

7.1 


Total 

Total  vegetable  food. 
Total  food 


.00  2,610 

.15  1.330 

.15  1.275 

.20  1 , 505 

.  15  -1"." 


1.25       7,175 


13 
28 


58 


38.895       1.543  490 

06,  630       3.  724       5,  484 


Table  and  kitchen  waste  (a)...       15.2        20.7, 
Fat 100.  0    . 


63.3    3.715 

50 


505 




50 


Total 3.765 


565 


819 


374 
117 


4:<; 


2.132 

151 

3.  904 

1,552 

606 

2,525 

1.326 

432 


1.249  393  |        12.688 


26 
121 
12 
30 
189 
21 
19 
629 


047 


358 
750 
106 
107 
31 


1.412 


16. 147 
16,~644 


2,35: 


2.  352 


a  Specimen  analyzed.     See  explanation,  p.  11. 


17 


Table  8. —  Weights  and  percentages  of  food  materials  and  nutritive  ingredient*  used  in 

dietary  study  No.  49. 


Weighl 

in  grams. 

Weight 

11  pounds. 

Kind  of  food  material. 

Food 
mate- 
rial. 

Nutrients. 

Pood 
mate- 
rial. 

Nutrients. 

Cost. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Pat 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

FOR  FAMILY  14  DAYS. 

6,815 
2,565 
3,565 
1,505 
455 
10,390 
2,440 

978 
140 
467 
2 
168 
353 
73 

788 
2,101 

339 
1,348 

115 

291 
12 

15.0 
5.7 
7.8 
3.3 
1.0 

22.9 
5.4 

2.1 
.3 

1.0 

"".'4 

.8 
.2 

1.7 

4.6 

.8 

3.0 

.3 

.6 

$1.60 
60 

74 

Butter 

.70 

6 
374 

117 

18 

Milk 

Buttermilk 

.8 

.3 

.57 

.06 

Total  animal  food 

27,  735 

19, 085 

12,  635 

7,175 

2,181 

4,994 

497 

61.1 

4.8 

11.0 

1.1  |     4.45 

Cereals,  sugars,  starches  — 

Vegetables 

Fruits 

1.249 

243 
51 

393 

38 
59 

12, 688 
2,047 
1.412 

42.1 
27.9 
15.8 

2.8 
.5 
.1 

.9 

.1 
.1 

28.  0  !     2. 18 
4.5       1.17 
3. 1        1 .  25 

Total  vegetable  food  . . 

38, 895 

1,543 

490 

16,147 

85.8 

3.4 

1.1 

35.  6        4.  60 

Total  food 

66, 630 

3,  724 

5,484 

16,  644 

146.9 

8.2 

12.1 

36  7       9  <>?» 

' — 

PER  MAN  PER  DAY. 

195 
73 

102 
43 
13 

297 
70 

28 

4 

13 

..... 

10 
2 

23 
60 
10 
38 
3 
9 

.43 
.16 
.22 
.10 
.03 
.65 
.15 

.06 
.01 
.03 

*".'6i 

.02 

.05 
.13 
.02 
.09 
.01 

..:.02 

Cheese 

Milk 

11 
3 

02  . 

Buttermilk 

.01 

.13 

Total  animal  food 

793 

62 

143 

14 

1.74 

.13 

.32 

.03 

545 
361 

205 

36 

7 

1 

11 
1 
2 

363 
58 
40 

1.20 
.80 
.45 

.08 

.02 

.02 

■-.-a 

.80 

13 

Fruits 

.09 

Total  vegetable  food. . 

1,111 

44 

14 

461 

2.45 

.10 

.03 

1.02       .13 

Total  food 

1,904 

106 

_  157 

475 

4.19 

.23 

.35 

1.  05       .  26 

PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL  FOOD. 

Per  ct. 

10.2 

3.8 

5.4 

2.3 

.7 

15.6 

3.6 

Per  ct. 

26.3 

3.8 

12.5 

""4."  5" 

9.5 
2.0 

Per  ct. 

14.4 

38.3 

6.2 

24.6 

2.1 

5.3 

.  2 

Per-  cent. 

1 

Perct. 

17.7 

6.6 

8.2 

Pork,  lard,  etc 



Eggs 

Butter 

" 

7.7 

2.0 

Milk 

2.3 

.7 

6.3 

Buttermilk 

.7 

41.6 

58.6 

91.1 

3.0 

49.2 

Cereals,  sugars,  starches 

28.6 
19.0 
10.8 

33.5 
6.5 
1.4 

7.1 

.7 

1.1 

76.2 
12.3 

8.5 

24.1 
12.9 
13.8 

Vegetables 

Fruits 

Total  vegetable  food  . . 

58.4 

41.4 

8.9 

97.0 



50.8 

Total  food 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

340     No.  32 

?, 

18 

TABLE  9,  —  Nutrients  and  potential  energy  in  food  purchased,  rejected,  and  eaten  in  dietary 

study  Xo.  49, 


Cost. 

Nutrients. 

Fuel 

value. 

Kind  Hi'  f 1  material. 

Protein. 

Fat . 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Food  purchased: 

$4.45 
4.60 

(trams. 

2,181 
1,543 

Grams. 

4,  994 
490 

(iranix. 

497 

16,147 

Calories. 
57, 420 

77,  090 

Total         

9.  or. 

3,724 

5,484 

16,644 

134,510 

Waste: 

459 
106 

785 
34 

9  180 

2,352 

10  400 

Total 

565 

819 

2,352 

19,580 

Food  actually  eaten: 

1,722 
1,437 

4,209 
456 

497 
13, 795 

48,  240 
66.  690 

Total                          

3,159 

4,665 

14, 292 

114,930 

PER  MAN  PER  DAT. 

Food  purchased: 

.13 
.13 

62 
44 

143 
14 

14 
461 

1  640 

2  200 

Total 

.26 

106 

157 

475 

3,840 

Waste : 

13 
3 

22 

1 

260 

67 

295 

Total  

16 

23 

67 

555 

Food  actually  eaten : 

49 
41 

121 
13 

14 

394 

1,345 

1,940 

Total 

90 

134 

408 

== 

Per  cent. 

3.0 

97.0 

3,285 

PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL  FOOD  PURCHASED. 

Food  purchased: 

Per  cent. 
49.2 
50.8 

Per  cent. 
58.6 
41.4 

Per  cent. 
91.1 

8.9 

Per  cent. 
42.7 

57  3 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Waste: 

12.3 
2.9 

14.3 
.6 

6  8 

14.1 

7.7 

Total 

15.2 

14.9 

14.1 

14.5 

Food  actually  eaten : 

46.3 
38.5 

76.8 

8.3 

3.0 
82.9 

35.9 

49.6 



Total 

84.8 

85.1 

85.9 

85.5 



19 


Table  10. — Summary  of  weights  and  percentage*  of  food  materials  and  nutritive  ingre- 
dients used  in  dietary  studies  Xos.  44  and  49. 


Weight. 

Coat. 

Percentage  of  total  food. 

Kind  of  food  material. 

Food 
mate- 
rial. 

Nutrients. 

Food 

mate- 
rial. 

Nutrient-. 

Cost. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Fat. 

Carbo- 

by- 

drates. 

Pro- 

leili. 

Pat. 

Carl  10- 

drates. 

PER  MAN  PER   DAY. 

Teacher's  family. 

Grams. 

38 

60 

23 

706 

5 

drams. 
43 

1 
8 

""23" 

Grama. 

19 

33 

6 

20 
28 
(') 

Grams. 

Cents. 
5.2 
.9 
1.4 
1.3 
3.2 

Per  ct. 

13.3 

2.2 

3.6 

1.4 

42.2 

.3 

Perct. 

38.5 
.9 

7.1 

'20."  6" 
.3 

Perct. 
17.3 
30.1 
5.2 
18.6 
25.0 
.1 

Per  cent. 

Ferct. 
28.  6 

4.9 

8.1 

7.4 

Milk 

29 
3 

8.3 
.8 

17.9 

1.  1 

Total  animal  food. 

1,054 

75 

106 

32 

12.0 

63.0 

67.7 

96.3 

9.1 

68.0 

Cereals,  sugars,  starches 

326 
176 
117 

29 
6 

1 

3 
1 

260 

29 
28 

2.4 
1.9 
1.7 

19.5 

10.5 

7.0 

26.2 
5.1 
1.0 

2.6 
.6 
.5 

74.7 
8.2 
8.0 

12.7 
10.0 

9.3 

Total  vegetable 

619 

36 

4 

317 

6.0 

37.0 

32.3 

3.7 

90.9 

32.0 

Total  food 

1,673 

111 

110 

349 

18.0 

100.0 

100.  0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Tinner' s  family. 
Beef,  veal,  and  mutton.. 

195 
73 

102 
43 
13 

297 
70 

28 

4 

13 

..... 

10 

2 

23 
60 
10 
38 
3 
9 

4.5 
2.4 
1.7 
2.1 

.5 
1.6 

.2 

10.2 
3.8 
5.4 
2.3 
.7 

15.6 
3.6 

26.3 
3.8 
12.5 

"I"  5' 
9.5 
2.0 

14.4 

38.3 

6.2 

24.6 

2.1 

5.3 

.2 

17.7 

6.6 

8.2 

Butter 

7.7 

2.0 

Milk  

11 
3 

2.3 
.7 

6.3 

.7 

Total  animal  food. 

793 

62 

143 

14 

13.0 

41.6 

58.6 

91.1 

3.0 

49.2 

Cereals,  sugars,  starches 

545 
361 

205 

36 

7 
1 

11 
1 
2 

363 
58 
40 

6.2 
3.3 
3.5 

28.6 
19.0 

10.8 

33.5 
6.5 
1.4 

7.1 

.  7 
1.1 

76.2 

12.3 

8.0 

24.1 
12.9 

Fruits 

13.8 

Total  vegetable 
food 

1,111 " 

44 

14 

461 

13.0 

58.4 

41.4 

8.9 

97.0 

50.8 

Total  food 

1,904 

106 

157 

475 

26.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.  0 

100.0 

1  Less  than  1  gram. 


Taiii.k  11. 


20 

Xittrinits  and  potential  energy  in  food  purchased,  rejected,  and  eaten  per 
man  per  day  in  dietary  studies  Xos.  44  and  49. 


Kind  of  t'<»o<l  material. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Pat. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fuel 
value. 

TEAf  lIKK's    FAMILY. 

Food  purchased : 

$0.12 
.06 

Grams, 

75 
3G 

Grams. 

106 

4 

Grams. 

32 
317 

Calories. 
1  425 

1  485 

Total 

.18 

111 

110 

349 

2,910 

Waste : 

4 
1 

8 

90 

9 

40 

Total 

5 

8 

9 

130 

Food  actually  eaten: 



71 
35 

98 
4 

32 
308 

1,335 
1,445 

Total 

106 

102 

340 

2,780 

tinner's  family. 
Food  purchased : 

.13 
.13 

62 

44 

143 
14 

14 
461 

1,640 

2,200 

Total 

.26 

106 

157 

475 

3,840 

Waste: 

13 
3 

22 

1 

"67* 

260 

295 

Total 

16 

23 

67 

555 



Food  actually  eaten : 

Animal.." 

"V  egetable 



49 

41 

121 
13 

14 
394 

1,345 
1,940 

Total 

90 

134 

408 

3,285 

Some  discussion  of  the  data  obtained  in  these  dietary  studies  will 
doubtless  render  them  more  easily  intelligible  and  direct  attention  to 
certain  features  which  might  otherwise  escape  notice. 

COMPOSITION    OF    THE   FOOD   MATERIALS. 

The  analyses  of  food  materials  here  recorded  relate  almost  without 
exception  to  local  products,  which  may  be  taken  as  fairly  representa- 
tive of  the  food  supplies  available  in  a  considerable  section  of  the 
"Middle  West."  Such  analyses  have  therefore  a  particular  interest 
as  giving  accurate  information  regarding  the  composition  and  nutritive 
value  of  the  food  products  of  a  certain  locality.  They  also  furnish  a 
means  of  comparison  with  similar  products  in  other  localities  or  coun- 
tries; and,  finally,  they  contribute  to  the  general  fund  of  information 
being  accumulated  for  the  purpose  of  a  general  study  of  American 
food  stuffs.  It  would,  however,  be  unjustifiable  to  draw  general  con- 
clusions from  the  limited  number  of  analyses  herewith  reported.  As 
compared  with  the  small  number  of  other  recorded  analyses  of  beef,  it 
would  seem  that  the  samples  used  in  these  dietaries  contained  less  fat 
in  the  edible  portion,  the  effect  of  which  may  be  traced  in  the  some- 
what louer  fuel  values  per  pound.     This  may  be  regarded  as  a  desira- 


21 

ble  characteristic,  since  it  is  probable  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  food 
value,  much  American  beef  is  too  fat.  In  their  mosl  valued  constitu- 
ent, protein,  these  meats  are  in  nowise  inferior,  but  in  most  eases  show 
a  relatively  high  percentage  of  this  substance. 

The  dairy  products,  with  the  exception  of  butter,  contain  on  the 
average  a  comparatively  low  amount  of  solids  and  fats,  while  the  vege- 
table foods  show  relatively  a  high  content  of  protein  and  fats. 

REFUSE   IN   MEATS. 

There  is  a  general  lack  of  accurate  knowledge  as  to  the  percentage 
of  refuse  in  meats  (bones,  skin,  etc).  For  this  reason  the  data  given 
in  Table  1  will  be  of  some  interest.  In  some  instances  this  refuse 
amounts  to  nearly  30  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  meat  purchased  and 
rarely  falls  below  10  per  cent.  Of  the  remaining  u  edible  portion," 
usually  from  50  to  70  per  cent  is  found  to  be  water.  Considering  the 
prices  of  meats  as  compared  with  other  foods,  it  is  easily  seen  that 
the  actual  cost  of  the  nutrients  in  this  form  is  very  high.  With  12  per 
cent  of  refuse  and  GO  per  cent  of  water  in  the  edible  portion  of  a  given 
specimen  of  meat,  the  actual  nutritive  portion  constitutes  only  about 
one-third  the  purchased  weight,  or,  in  other  words,  the  actual  cost  of 
the  nutrients  in  such  meat  is  three  times  the  apparent  cost.  Of  course, 
in  the  absence  of  bone,  this  objection  is  largely  removed. 

RELATIVE    CHARACTER   AND   COST    OF   THE   DIETARIES. 

The  summaries  of  the  two  dietaries  given  in  Tables  10  and  11  pre- 
sent several  interesting  features.  From  these  the  exact  proportions 
of  the  different  kinds  of  animal  and  vegetable  foods  which  went  to 
make  tx\)  the  daily  rations  can  be  learned,  the  proportional  sums  spent 
for  these,  the  total  amount  of  food  consumed  per  individual,  the  total 
cost  per  individual,  and,  finally,  what  is  particularly  interesting  from 
the  standpoint  of  economy,  the  proportion  of  the  food  which  was 
respectively  wasted  and  consumed  in  the  two  families. 

It  will  be  of  interest  first  to  compare  the  relative  proportion  of 
animal  and  vegetable  food  purchased  per  man  per  day.  In  the  teacher's 
family  this  was  1,054  grams  (2.32  pounds)  of  animal  and  Gil)  grams 
(1.3G  pounds)  of  vegetable  food ;  in  the  tinner's  family  this  proportion 
was  virtually  reversed,  the  amounts  being  793  grams  (1.75  pounds)  and 
1,111  grams  (2.45  pounds).  These  figures  express  very  clearly  the 
dietary  habits  of  the  two  families. 

The  relative  sums  spent  for  animal  and  vegetable  foods  in  the  teach- 
er's family  were  12  and  G  cents  respectively,  and  in  the  tinner's  family 
13  and  13  cents  per  man  per  day — that  is,  the  tinner's  family  spent  1 
cent  more  for  animal  food  than  the  teacher's  family  and  more  than  twice 
as  much  for  vegetable  foods. 

Reference  to  the  items  of  the  two  dietaries  shows  that  the  teacher's 
family  purchased  more  substantial  and  more  nourishing  food  than  the 


22 

tinner's  family,  although  in  less  quantity.  The  former  ate  home-made 
bread  and  cakes,  the  latter  bought  baker's  bread  and  occasionally  cake. 
The  teacher's  family  consumed  more  than  twice  as  much  milk  per  man 
per  day  as  the  tinner's  family,  while  the  latter  purchased  rather  more 
of  fruits  and  vegetables.  The  total  food  purchased  by  the  teacher's 
family  per  man  per  day  was  1,673  grams  (3.G9  pounds),  at  a  cost  of  18 
cents;  by  the  tinner's  family  1,004  grams  (4.20  pounds),  at  a  cost  of  26 
cents.  This  food  contained,  respectively,  of  the  nutrient  substances  .~>70 
grams  (1.26  pounds)  and  738  grains  (1.G2  pounds),  of  which  548  grams 
(1.21  pounds)  and  G32  grams  (1.39  pounds)  were  consumed  in  the 
respective  families.  The  relative  cost  of  the  two  dietaries  was  as  1 
to  1.44  and  the  relative  consumption  of  nutrients  was  as  1  to  1.15. 
These  results  are  exceedingly  instructive  with  regard  to  economy  of 
living  and  well  worth  careful  study.  They  show  very  plainly  that  the 
more  costly  dietary  is  not  necessarily  the  more  attractive  or  nutritious. 
It  could  not  be  said  that  the  tinner's  dietary,  which  cost  26  cents  per 
day,  was  in  any  way  preferable  to  that  of  the  teacher's  family  which 
cost  18  cents  per  day.  On  the  contrary,  the  latter  was  the  more  rational 
and  substantial. 

The  difference  in  cost  was  due  largely  to  the  character  and  to  some 
extent  to  the  greater  amount  of  food  purchased.  The  tinner  pur- 
chased 1.29  times  as  much  edible  nutrients  as  the  teacher ;  but  only 
consumed  1.15  times  as  much.  The  discrepancy  between  cost,  amount 
purchased,  and  consumption  was  due  to  two  causes,  which  are  without 
doubt  the  two  principal  errors  iu  general  household  economy  in  America. 
The  first  was  the  purchase  of  nutrients  in  their  more  expensive  forms. 
The  second  was  the  undue  proportion  of  waste  of  materials  which  were 
in  themselves  edible.  The  final  table,  which  summarizes  the  amounts 
of  animal  and  vegetable  foods  respectively  purchased,  wasted,  and 
eaten  brings  out  this  latter  fact  with  great  distinctness.  In  the  teach- 
er's family  9G.1  per  cent  of  all  food  purchased  was  actually  eaten  and 
only  3.9  per  cent  wasted.  In  the  tinner's  family,  only  85.G  of  the  pur- 
chased food  was  eaten  and  14.4  per  cent  wasted.  Without  detracting 
from  the  attractiveness  or  value  of  the  daily  food  in  any  way,  there  was 
opportunity  in  the  latter  case  for  economy  in  two  Avays,  viz,  in  purchas- 
ing the  food  and  in  avoiding  wastes. 

The  dietary  of  the  teacher's  family  constitutes  an  exceptionally  good 
example  of  intelligent  and  economical  management,  securing  at  the 
same  time  excellent  living.  The  tinner's  dietary  was  in  no  way  an 
exception,  but  is  probably  quite  typical  of  the  manner  of  living  of  the 
great  majority  of  wage  earners  of  the  better  class. 


COMMENTS  ON  THE  DIETARY  STUDIES  AT  PURDUE  UNIVERSITY. 


By  \V.  O.  Atwateu  and  ('has.   D.  Woods. 


Iii  the  preceding  pages  Professor  Stone  has  reported  the  results  of 
two  interesting  dietary  studies,  one  of  the  family  of  a  professional  man 
(teacher  in  a  college),  the  other  of  a  mechanic's  family.  Both  families 
were  selected  as  being  more  or  less  typical  of  the  classes  which  they 
represent.  It  will  be  interesting  to  compare  the  results  of  these 
studies  with  others  obtained  elsewhere  and  with  the  so-called  "  dietary 
standards." 

STANDARDS   FOR   DIETARIES. 

The  most  satisfactory  standards  for  dietaries  must  be  based  upon 
the  quantities  of  nutrients  best  suited  to  the  nutrition  of  a  particular 
individual  or  class.  This,  which  may  be  called  the  physiological  stand- 
ard, can  be  found  only  in  the  observed  facts  of  normal  metabolism,  and 
would  take  into  consideration  only  what  is  best  adapted  to  the  actual 
demand  for  nutriment.  The  most  economical  standard  would  take  into 
account  not  only  the  actual  demands  of  the  body  for  nourishment,  but 
the  kinds  of  food  available  and  their  pecuniary  cost.  Unfortunately, 
the  data  now  at  hand  are  too  few  and  too  incomplete  to  make  accurate 
estimates  of  the  physiological  demands  of  people  of  different  classes, 
and  on  this  account  the  so-called  dietary  standards  arc  for  the  most 
part  based  upon  the  observed  facts  of  food  consumption.  The  stand- 
ards which  have  been  suggested  by  one  of  the  writers,1  and  which  are 
given  below,  are  based  upon  the  assumptions  that  the  body  requires  for 
its  nourishment  enough  of  protein  to  replace  all  of  the  nitrogenous 
substances  consumed  in  the  body  and  enough  of  energy  to  supply  the 
demand  for  heat  and  work.  They  differ  somewhat  from  the  standards 
proposed  by  Voit  and  others  in  Europe  twenty  or  more  years  ago, 
partly  because  more  recent  research  in  the  science  of  nutrition  has 
brought  new  information,  but  chiefly  because  the  results  of  studies  of 
American  dietaries  have  been  taken  into  account  in  making  the  estimates. 

1  American  and  European  Dietaries  and  Dietary  Standards,  by  W.  0.  Atwater, 
Connecticut  Storrs  Station  Report,  1891.  See  also  U.  S.  Dept.  A.gr.,  Office  of  Experi- 
ment Stations  Bui.  21,  p.  206  et  seq. 

23 


24 


Standards 

for 

daily  dietaries. 

Protein. 

Fuel 
value. 

Nutritive 
ratio. 

M:i  n  wit  lion  t  muscular  work 

Grams. 
100 
112 
125 

Calories. 
2,  700 
3,000 
3,500 

1-5  6 

Man  with  light  muscular  work 

1:5.5 
1:5.8 

III  the  discussion  which  follows,  these  standards  are  to  be  understood 
to  represent  simply  tentative  estimates  of  the  protein  and  energy 
required.  Later  research  may  be  expected  to  furnish  data  for  the 
revision  of  these  figures,  and  they  are  in  no  sense  to  be  considered  as 
exact  or  final. 

DIETARIES   OF   MECHANICS7   FAMILIES. 

In  the  table  which  follows  are  given  the  condensed  results  of  several 
dietary  studies  of  mechanics'  families  in  Connecticut,1  one  in  Tennessee,2 
and  one  in  Indiana,  reported  in  previous  pages. 

Dietaries  of  mechanics'  families  in  Connecticut,  Indiana,  and  Tennessee. 


Per  man 

per  day. 

Nutritive 
ratio. 

Protein. 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 
drates'. 

Fuel 

value. 

MECHANICS'  FAMILIES  IN  CONNECTICUT. 

Dietary  with  minimum  protein,  food  purchased.. . 
Dietary  with  maximum  protein,  food  purchased  . . 
Dietary  with  minimum  energy,  food  purchased.. . 
Dietary  with  maximum  energy,  food  purchased. . . 

Grams. 
100 
126 
111 
126 

Grains. 
159 
188 
144 

188 

Grams. 
427 
426 
377 
426 

Calories. 
3,640 
4.010 
3,335 
4.010 

1:7.9 
1:6.8 
1:6.3 
1:6.8 

Average  7  dietaries : 
Food  purchased — 

69 
45 

150 
8 

22 
414 

1,770 
1,950 

Total 

114 

7 
107 

158 

12 

146 

436 

13 

423 

3,720 

195 

3,525 

1 : 7.  0 

1:7.0 

MECHANIC'S  FAMILY  IN  INDIANA. 

Food  purchased : 

62 
44 

143 
14 

14 
461 

1,640 
2,200 



Total 

106 
1G 
90 

63 
56 

157 

23 

134 

475 

67 

408 

3.840 

555 

3,285 

1:8.9 

1:8.9 

MECHANIC'S  FAMILY   IN  TENNESSEE. 

Food  purchased: 

214 
10 

15 

440 

2,310 

•J.  125 

Total 

119 

9 

110 

224 

14 

210 

455 

43 

412 

4,435 

345 

4r090 

1:8.1 

Waste,  total 

1:8.  1 

mechanics'  families. 

Average  of  all  (9)  of  above : 
Food  purchased — 

68 
46 

157 
8 

20 
423 

1,820 

2,  000 

Total 

114 

9 

105 

165 

13 

443 

23 

420 

3,820 

250 

3,570 

1:7.2 

1:7.3 

1  Connecticut  Storrs  Station  Reports,  1891-1895. 

2U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Office  of  Experiment  Stations  Bui.  29. 


25 

The  figures  of  the  above  tables  are  more  concisely  com  pa  red  in  the 
following: 

Protein,  fuel  value,  and  nutritive  ratio  of  dietaries  of  mechanics'  families  in  Connecticut, 

Tennessee,  and  Indiana. 


Number 
of  fam- 
ilies. 

Protein. 

Fuel 
value. 

Nutritive 
ratio. 

Food  eaton : 

7 

1 
1 
9 

Crams. 
107 
90 
110 
105 
112 
125 

Calories. 
3,  525 

3,  285 

4,  090 
3,570 
3,000 
3,500 

1-7  0 

1:8.9 
1-8  1 

All 

1-7  3 

1:5  5 

1:5  8 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  of  the  above  dietaries  have  nutritive 
ratios  much  larger  than  the  standards.  Viewed  from  this  point,  the 
dietaries  are  deficient  in  protein.  With  the  exception  of  the  Tennessee 
family,  the  fuel  values  agree  quite  closely  with  the  standards.  The 
large  nutritive  ratio  of  the  Indiana  dietary  is  due  chiefly  to  the  use  of 
lard  and  butter  in  relatively  large  amounts;  in  Tennessee  the  family 
used  large  quantities  of  lard,  fat  pork,  and  bacon.  To  the  fatness  of 
meats,  the  abundance  and  comparative  cheapness  of  sugar,  starches, 
and  pork,  and  the  common  use  of  "sweets"  of  all  kinds  the  large  nutri- 
tive ratio  of  American  dietaries  is  chiefly  to  be  attributed. 


DIETARIES   OF   FAMILIES   OF   PROFESSIONAL   MEN. 

In  the  table  which  follows  are  given  the  condensed  results  of  several 
dietaries  of  professional  men  in  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois.  The  studies  in  Connecticut  were  reported  by  the  writers ; l 
the  study  in  Pennsylvania  was  made  by  Prof.  Belle  Bevier,  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Woman's  College,  at  Pittsburg,  in  cooperation  with  this 
Department;  the  studies  in  Illinois  were  made  in  Evanston  and  Chi- 
cago in  cooperation  with  the  Hull  House  for  this  Department  by  Miss 
C.  L.  Hunt,  and  the  one  in  Indiana  is  that  reported  in  previous  pages. 
The  results  of  the  studies  in  Pennsylvania  and  Illinois  have  not  yet 
been  published. 

1  Connecticut  Storrs  Station  Reports,  1891-1895. 


26 

DietarUx  of  families  of  professional  men  (chiefly  college  professors)  in  Connecticut,  Penn- 
sylvania, Indiana,  and  Illinois. 


Per  man 

per  day. 

Nutritive 
ratio. 

Protein. 

1 

Fat. 

Carbohy- 
drates*. 

Fu.  1 
value. 

raovnsioKAL  imr's  kamii.ii-                cticut. 

Dietary  with  liiininuini  protein,  food  porohaood... 
Dietary  with  maximum  protein,  food  purchased... 

Dietary  with  minimom  energy,  foed  poreheoed 

Dietary  with  maximum  energy,  food  purchased. . 

91 
120 
118 

120 

L20 

147 
103 
147 

Grams. 
483 
440 
430 
440 

Calories. 
3.660 
3.660 

1:8.4 

1:6.4 
1:5.6 
1:6.4 

Average  7  dietary  studies  of  4  families: 
Food  purchased— 

66 
43 

114 
15 

23 

415 

1.  425 

Vegetable 

Total 

Waste,  total 

109 

4 

105 

129 
6 

123 

4  « 

3 

435 

3,450 
3.365 

1:6.7 

1-6.  8 

PROFESSIONAL  MANS   FAMILY   IN   PENNSYLVANIA. 

Food  purchased : 

54 
67 

168 
8 

16 
507 

1.850 

2.  425 

Total 

121 

114 

176 
11 

1C5 

523 

17 

506 

4.275 

200 

4.  075 

1:7.6 

Waste,  total 

1:7.7 

PROFESSIONAL  MAN*S  FAMILY  IN   INDIANA. 

Food  purchased : 

75 
36 

106 
4 

32 

317 

1.425 

1.4*5 

Vegetable 

Total 

Waste,  total 

Food  eaten,  total 

111 

5 

106 

110 

8 

102 

349 

9 

340 

2.910 

130 

2,780 

1:5.4 

PROFESSIONAL  MEN  S  FAMILIES   IN  ILLINOIS. 

Dietary  with  minimum  protein,  food  purchased  . 
Dietary  with  maximum  protein,  food  purchased. 
Dietary  with  minimum  energy,  food  purchased  . 
Dietary  with  maximum  energy,  food  purchased. 

Average  3  dietaries: 
Food  purchased — 

Animal 

Vegetable 


92 
123 
92 


SI 


Total 

No  estimation  of  vraste  made. 

PROFESSIONAL  MEN'S  FAMILIES. 

Average  of  all  (9)  of  above : 
Food  purchased— 

Animal 

Vegetable 

Total 

Waste,  total1 

Food  eaten,  total 


112 


103  300  2.565  1:5.8 

359  3.  260  1 :  5.  5 

103  300  2.5€5  1:5.8 

120  627  4. 085  1:9.3 


25  1,410  !. 

404  1,895    . 


3,305 


1:6.8 


1  Average  6  dietaries. 


27 

The  figures  of  the   above  table  are  more  concisely   stand    in   the 

following: 

Protein,  fuel  mine,  and  nutritive  ratio  of  dietaries  of  families  of  professional  men  in  Con- 

necticnt.  I'ennsi/lvania,  Indiana,  and  Illinois. 


Food  eaten : 

Connecticut 

Pennsylvania 

Indiana 

Illinois  ' 

A  vera^e  of  all 

Standard  for  man  without  muscular  work 
Standard  for  man  with  light  muscular  work 


1  Food  purchased. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  protein  is  fairly  in  accord  with  the  stand- 
ard in  all  of  the  instances  except  in  the  case  of  the  Pennsylvania 
dietary.  The  fuel  value  of  food  eaten  is  much  larger  than  the  standard 
except  in  the  case  of  the  Indiana  dietary.  This  dietary  in  fuel  value, 
nutritive  ratio,  and  protein  is  very  nearly  that  suggested  in  the  stand- 
ard for  a  man  without  muscular  work.  The  nutritive  ratio  is  larger 
than  the  standard  in  all  of  the  dietaries  except  that  of  the  Indiana 
family,  and  is  particularly  so  in  that  of  the  Pennsylvania  family. 

It  is  very  interesting  to  observe  that  so  far  as  the  average  figures 
are  concerned  the  dietaries  of  these  professional  men  accord  very  nearly 
with  the  figures  found  for  mechanics.  As  the  following  table  indicates, 
the  chief  difference  is  found  in  the  slightly  smaller  fuel  value  and  nutri- 
tive ratio  of  the  diet  of  the  professional  men: 

Comjnirison  of  food  eaten  in  dietaries  of  families  of  mechanic*  and  ofprofeasiondl  men. 


Mechanics 

Professional  men 


Xuniber 
of 

families. 


Per  man  per  day, 


Protein. 


Grams. 
105 
104 


Fuel 
value. 


Calories. 
3,570 
3,315 


Nutritive 

ratio. 


1:7.3 
1:6.8 


If  the  average  eating  habits  of  the  families  thus  stated  are  taken  as 
representing  the  average  of  families  of  their  classes,  it  is  evident  that 
the  so-called  standards  above  referred  to  and  the  actual  practice  of 
well-to-do  people  in  this  country  are  not  in  accord.  It  would,  however, 
be  going  too  far  to  assume  that  the  results  of  these  few  studies  accu- 
rately represent  the  general  practice.  In  order  to  find  what  the  latter 
is,  a  large  amount  of  investigation  is  necessary.  At  the  same  time 
the  dietary  studies  of  well-to-do  people  thus  far  made  in  the  United 
States  show,  as  a  whole,  a  relatively  large  consumption  of  the  fuel 
ingredients  of  food,  fat,  starch,  and  sugar,  and  wide  nutritive  ratio. 


28 

This  subject  has  been  discussed  in  another  place.1  It  will  suffice  here 
to  say  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writers,  the  difference  between  the 
standards  ordinarily  adopted  by  physiologists  and  chemists  and  the 
averages  of  the  dietary  studies  made  in  the  United  States,  in  respect  to 
the  relatively  large  amounts  of  fuel  ingredients  and  the  wider  nutritive 
ratios  of  the  latter,  are  to  be  explained  by  a  simple  but  important  fact, 
namely,  that  foods  containing  fat,  starch,  and  sugar  are  so  abundant 
and  so  agreeable  to  the  palate. 

1  I  r.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Office  of  Experiment  Stations  Bui.  21,  pp.  206-214. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  FLORIDA 

niiiiiiiiiiii 

3  1262  08927  7775 


